SIDEBAR #26- Arias/Alexander forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #301
The good thing about Jodi going pro se is she can't use ineffective assistance of counsel once she's gets a DP sentence as an appeals issue.

I think she will do herself in...

She can still use it for the actual trial, tho', when Nurmi/Wilmott were her lawyers.

She probably will use it in her appeals (which I am researching- I'm interested in how appeals are handled).
 
  • #302
She can still use it for the actual trial, tho', when Nurmi/Wilmott were her lawyers.

She probably will use it in her appeals (which I am researching- I'm interested in how appeals are handled).

How do you think if she is her own counsel that she could use that if given the DP..








Give a Man Enough Rope And He’ll Hang Himself.

The right to represent yourself at trial does not mean that exercising that right is a good idea. You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, but just because it is possible doesn’t make it advisable. The same could be said for many defendants who decide to represent themselves in a criminal matter. The main advantage of a defendant choosing self-representation is that decisions typically at the discretion of counsel are now the defendant’s to make. The defendant can decide for himself which jurors to accept or strike, which witnesses to call, what evidence to introduce, what motions to make, and how to cross-examine witnesses. Another potential advantage is that judges, though not required, are generally more lenient with pro se defendants than they are with lawyers. In fact, it is not uncommon for judges to coach defendants along when they become befuddled by procedural rules.

However, the tradeoffs can greatly outnumber the advantages of self-representation. As the Court stated in Faretta v. California, “when the accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel.” For starters, the loss of legal and technical expertise a lawyer provides could prove detrimental to any case. Worse yet, a defendant who elects to self-represent has no right to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.


“The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. Thus, whatever else may or may not be open to him on appeal, a defendant who elects to represent himself cannot thereafter complain that the quality of his own defense amounted to a denial of effective assistance of counsel.”
http://www.thelegality.com/2008/03/...ro-se-crafty-legal-strategy-or-fool’s-errand/
 
  • #303
How Death Penalty Jurors are Unfairly Selected, Manipulated, and Kept in the Dark

(FYI-this is just one view of the DP and juries. I do not believe in the DP, but I do accept/support what the victim's family wants and just thought this article was interesting and others would like to read it [always good to get other's views, IMO], so take it with a grain of salt and use your common sense when you read it, whatever you believe- all this said here in this FYI statement, :moo:)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/BlindJusticeReport.pdf

YorN, I couldn't vote for the DP so I would be ruled out as a juror anyway. But the slaughter of one human being by another does get me so riled up that I favor the harshest sentence possible. In Jodi's case, there is no question she committed this slaughter, and for no other reason but pure jealousy and rage. I would never believe an abuse victim would have a sexual conversation with their abuser willingly and tape it much less! Nor would I believe an abuse victim would drive from northern California to the Arizona desert to say hi. This was premeditated and planned so I understand the family of Travis saying, " Ok, let's give her what she gave. Death.". And I can see many people wanting to give her the needle. What I can't see are the endless appeals that may come even after she confessed and all the evidence to go with it. She has no remorse. She is a crazy, twisted, sick beast, and we all know it and even then, prosecution knows if anyone is labeled as mentally ill, they can get out of the DP.

Now if there is a real question over guilt or innocence, I say they should get life and have chances for appeal. But for Jodi, no way, no how can I see anyone in the judicial system justifying an appeal for her. To me, she is the worst of the worst. So if this new jury gives her the DP, so be it.
 
  • #304
How do you think if she is her own counsel that she could use that if given the DP..


http://www.thelegality.com/2008/03/...ro-se-crafty-legal-strategy-or-fool’s-errand/


I don't quite understand your question.

She will probably have appeals on either DP or LWOP. Everyone has appeals after the verdict- no matter what it is.

In a criminal case, the defendant may appeal a guilty verdict, but the government may not appeal if a defendant is found not guilty. Either side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence that is imposed after a guilty verdict.

An appeal rarely challenges the decision of the jury, but rather challenges any legal errors that the judge or the prosecution may have made during the trial. Any ruling that the judge made during the preliminary hearing , during pre-trial motions and during the trial itself can be appealed if the appellant (who is the "defendant" before the appeals) believes the ruling was in error.

Here is the process for DP:

http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/dpappealsprocess

She won't be able to use "ineffectual assistance of counsel" in the penalty phase because she is acting as her own counsel, but she can use "ineffectual assistance of counsel" for the trial (guilt phase) when she had Nurmi/Wilmott as her lawyers.
 
  • #305
I do believe in the DP, live in a DP state. I think the killer will get life. Narcissists are masters at charming and convincing people to their views. With the killer representing herself, the jury will become connected to her as a person and not the monster that she is. I think the person image will work in her favor. Me, I would have given her DP the first trial.
 
  • #306
Just watched a bit of this video again that was taken a little over a month before Travis passed on. It absolutely breaks my heart. What an amazing man. I know we say that about all victims and it is true but Travis was really something special. What a kind, compassionate and smart man he was. I wish and hope he realizes just how many people love him. I wish he'd know that he has inspired me to a better person. I know he had a passion for helping others and I hope knowing that he has helped me puts a smile on his beautiful face.

You'll always be in our prayers, Travis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDiJA09iK7Q
 
  • #307
I don't quite understand your question.

She will probably have appeals on either DP or LWOP. Everyone has appeals after the verdict- no matter what it is.

In a criminal case, the defendant may appeal a guilty verdict, but the government may not appeal if a defendant is found not guilty. Either side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence that is imposed after a guilty verdict.

An appeal rarely challenges the decision of the jury, but rather challenges any legal errors that the judge or the prosecution may have made during the trial. Any ruling that the judge made during the preliminary hearing , during pre-trial motions and during the trial itself can be appealed if the appellant (who is the "defendant" before the appeals) believes the ruling was in error.

Here is the process for DP:

http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/dpappealsprocess

She won't be able to use "ineffectual assistance of counsel" in the penalty phase because she is acting as her own counsel, but she can use "ineffectual assistance of counsel" for the trial (guilt phase) when she had Nurmi/Wilmott as her lawyers.

Maybe, maybe not.

Jodi's crime was horrendous, torture for Travis. She was cruel, she was inhumane, she was angry and jealous. I do hope after making a mockery of the AZ court system, the court of appeals will NOT give her more time to use and torture the family of Travis and her own family as well.
Jodi said, if I killed Travis, I'd beg for the DP..she should start begging.
 
  • #308
We've come to a strange pass. In her interview with AZ Central, Arias did assert that there were mitigators and witnesses her attorneys refused to bring forward. She also said she was at odds with their theory of the case at that point. She made clear that she and Nurmi did not like one another. Nurmi has now hit the ceiling of what he can tolerate and makes clear he & his client cannot agree. He thinks his role as advisor is insignificant and should not compel his further participation. Therefore, the views of lawyer & client converge and it is only court practice that tethers them together. Could this be any more awkward?

Judge Stephens did caution Arias that she was forfeiting the right to complain later her counsel was ineffective when her honor heard the self-representation request. Let's see if we can find that warning and whether it was limited.
 
  • #309
We've come to a strange pass. In her interview with AZ Central, Arias did assert that there were mitigators and witnesses her attorneys refused to bring forward. She also said she was at odds with their theory of the case at that point. She made clear that she and Nurmi did not like one another. Nurmi has now hit the ceiling of what he can tolerate and makes clear he & his client cannot agree. He thinks his role as advisor is insignificant and should not compel his further participation. Therefore, the views of lawyer & client converge and it is only court practice that tethers them together. Could this be any more awkward?

Judge Stephens did caution Arias that she was forfeiting the right to complain later her counsel was ineffective when her honor heard the self-representation request. Let's see if we can find that warning and whether it was limited.

BBM

Are you speaking of the emails that were allegedly made up? How can a officer of the court bring in evidence that is fraudulent?

Mitigators? What mitigators were not given?
 
  • #310
YorN, I couldn't vote for the DP so I would be ruled out as a juror anyway. But the slaughter of one human being by another does get me so riled up that I favor the harshest sentence possible. In Jodi's case, there is no question she committed this slaughter, and for no other reason but pure jealousy and rage. I would never believe an abuse victim would have a sexual conversation with their abuser willingly and tape it much less! Nor would I believe an abuse victim would drive from northern California to the Arizona desert to say hi. This was premeditated and planned so I understand the family of Travis saying, " Ok, let's give her what she gave. Death.". And I can see many people wanting to give her the needle. What I can't see are the endless appeals that may come even after she confessed and all the evidence to go with it. She has no remorse. She is a crazy, twisted, sick beast, and we all know it and even then, prosecution knows if anyone is labeled as mentally ill, they can get out of the DP.

Now if there is a real question over guilt or innocence, I say they should get life and have chances for appeal. But for Jodi, no way, no how can I see anyone in the judicial system justifying an appeal for her. To me, she is the worst of the worst. So if this new jury gives her the DP, so be it.

Everyone gets at least one appeal- it's part of the constitution, and rightly so- especially for those convicted who are really innocent.
But, of course, she is not innocent of murdering Travis.

It's all up to the jury to come to that decision or the judge, if the jury are deadlocked- not us and we have to "accept" that (not "like it").
And it's hard to accept, IMO, but there's nothing we can do about it.

Let her have her appeals- very few criminal trial appeals are successful from what I gather from my research. If she gets the DP, she'll have, on average, about 23 years left of her life.
She'll still be young and will have to die. Surely she will regret all the things she has done. What a shame and a waste of 2 lives- never mind all the heartache of the families involved.
I'm only sorry for all that Travis' family will go through in those 23 odd years when they have to wait for their "justice" for Travis.

There will never be complete resolution/justice for them because nothing will bring Travis back and their heartache will be carried with them to the day they die, IMO.
 
  • #311
She can still use it for the actual trial, tho', when Nurmi/Wilmott were her lawyers.

She probably will use it in her appeals (which I am researching- I'm interested in how appeals are handled).

Yes, I think that's one of her main goals, if she represents herself throughout this phase and isn't given the highest punishment (DP) she will use that in her appeal that, given effectual counsel, she should have also been given a lesser conviction (2nd degree) with no life sentence or DP eligibility. I don't believe an appeals court can change a conviction, but she could gain a new trial out of it.
 
  • #312
Just watched a bit of this video again that was taken a little over a month before Travis passed on. It absolutely breaks my heart. What an amazing man. I know we say that about all victims and it is true but Travis was really something special. What a kind, compassionate and smart man he was. I wish and hope he realizes just how many people love him. I wish he'd know that he has inspired me to a better person. I know he had a passion for helping others and I hope knowing that he has helped me puts a smile on his beautiful face.

You'll always be in our prayers, Travis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDiJA09iK7Q

Thanks for that video of Travis, rose- never saw it before. :blowkiss:

(I'll have to look at it a little each day because it will use too much of my bands, tho' :violin:
banghead.gif
)
 
  • #313
Yes, I think that's one of her main goals, if she represents herself throughout this phase and isn't given the highest punishment (DP) she will use that in her appeal that given effectual cousel she should have also been given a lesser conviction (2nd degree) with no life sentence or DP eligibility. I don't believe an appeals court can change a conviction, but she could gain a new trial out of it.

But the jurors spoke and agreed with the state. The cruelty of her actions were also agreed by the jurors.

A prosecutor doesn't have to agree to a plea deal. Juan Martinez knew he had strong evidence to support the State's theory which were backed by Jodi's police interviews...and caught on a photograph. She's making a mockery out of the judicial system, is my belief..
 
  • #314
But the jurors spoke and agreed with the state. The cruelty of her actions were also agreed by the jurors.

A prosecutor doesn't have to agree to a plea deal. Juan Martinez knew he had strong evidence to support the State's theory which were backed by Jodi's police interviews...and caught on a photograph. She's making a mockery out of the judicial system, is my belief..

Yes, but in her appeal she will argue that with better counsel she may not, or would not, have been convicted of premeditated murder. Heck, she may even argue that her counsel forced her into admitting falsely that she killed Travis, that there really were 'ninjas' but told her no one would believe her so she had to make up a story the jury might believe. We won't know the basis of her appeal until she files it, but it will most likely hinge on bad lawyering in one form or another. And if she's successful at avoiding the DP in her retrial, with her at the helm, she'll use that as proof even a non-lawyer could do a better job than her team did. It'll be sanctimony but well within her scope of behavior.
 
  • #315
Yes, I think that's one of her main goals, if she represents herself throughout this phase and isn't given the highest punishment (DP) she will use that in her appeal that, given effectual counsel, she should have also been given a lesser conviction (2nd degree) with no life sentence or DP eligibility. I don't believe an appeals court can change a conviction, but she could gain a new trial out of it.


She may appeal three things: a guilty verdict, an order denying a motion for new trial ( and she had loads of those, I think :scared:), or an illegal or excessive
sentence from what I remember from my research. (I could look it up if you want geevee, to be sure), but not right now as I have to do some chores that are hanging over my head. :floorlaugh:

The only person who wouldn't be able to appeal is ones who have entered a plea of "guilty" or "no contest".
--------------------------------------

I'm back and found what she can appeal (but I left out other things- jury misconduct, legal errors):

"...Criminal defendants who were convicted by a judge or jury at trial, however, have an absolute right to appeal their convictions. Additionally, all states which enforce the death penalty allow an automatic appeal of cases involving a death sentence....

Grounds for Appeal

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless. A conviction may also be appealed if the defendant reasonably believes that the jury conducted itself improperly during deliberations or the trial itself. Jury misconduct includes the use of experiments, drug or alcohol abuse during deliberations or trial, and improper communications between jurors and witnesses or counsel. Finally, criminal defendants often appeal their cases when they feel that they were not provided with adequate representation. To succeed in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendants must typically prove that but for their counsel's actions, the outcome of the case would have been different..."

http://www.justia.com/criminal/criminal-appeals/

Overview of Appeals process:

Appealing a Court Decision or Judgment

"Most decisions of a state or federal trial court (or an agency) are subject to review by an appeals court, including decisions regarding almost all types of civil cases. Whether the appeal concerns a judge's order or a final judgment entered by a jury, an appeals court reviews what happened in proceedings below for any errors of law....

An appeal is a review of the trial court's application of the law. There is no jury in an appeal, nor do the lawyers present witnesses or, typically, other forms of evidence. The court will accept the facts as they were revealed in the trial court, unless a factual finding is clearly against the weight of the evidence...."

http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/appealing-a-court-decision-or-judgment.html

Appeals of Criminal Cases:

Q. May I appeal my conviction?

A. Usually a person convicted at a trial has the right to appeal the conviction at least once.
(There are very few grounds for appeal if the defendant pleaded guilty.)

On appeal, the defendant can raise claims that mistakes were made in applying and
interpreting the law during the trial. For example, the defendant might claim that the judge
erroneously admitted hearsay testimony, gave improper jury instructions, should not have
permitted the prosecution to use evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional
rights, or permitted the prosecution to make improper closing arguments. If the appellate court
agrees that there were significant errors in the trial, the defendant will get a new trial.

Q. What if the law changes after a court convicts me?

A. If a court convicted you for something that is no longer a crime, you might be able to have
your conviction overturned. This also might be possible if a trial court denied you a right that the
U.S. Supreme Court later rules is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. However, your rights will
depend on whether the new rule or law is retroactive, that is, applied to past court decisions. As
a general rule, a change in the law would be retroactive to your criminal case if the case has been
appealed but not resolved at the time the law is changed. If, on the other hand, your case on
appeal has been resolved, the change in the law would not be retroactive to your case, unless the
change is one that directly enhances the accurate determination of your guilt or innocence..."

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...ical/books/family/chapter_14.authcheckdam.pdf

"APPEALS/POST-CONVICTION RELIEF (PCR)

After sentencing the two main avenues for a defendant to challenge the prosecution, conviction and sentence are appeals and petitions for post-conviction relief (PCR).

An appeal is a formal request from the defendant and/or the defendant’s attorney asking for an appellate court to review the case to determine if all of the defendant’s rights were observed and that the procedures and laws were followed. Depending on the type of appeal, either the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office or the Arizona Attorney General’s Office will handle it on behalf of the State. Cases on appeal are reviewed in writing. In some cases, oral arguments are heard by the Court. The testimony of the victims and witnesses is not allowed.

Any person who has been convicted of or sentenced for a criminal offense may file a PCR if they believe the conviction or sentence was in violation of the U.S. or Arizona Constitution; the Court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or impose sentence; the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum allowed by law; the person is being held in custody after the sentence imposed has expired; newly discovered material facts exist that may have changed the outcome; or if there has been a significant change in the law that applies to the defendant..."

http://www.maricopacountyattorney.o...prosecution/adult-criminal-trial-process.html
 
  • #316
No, not speaking of the forged emails in the above post (although I did over in another thread). I'm not the one who is speaking here. It is Arias in her t.v. interview. She did not specify which mitigating factors she wanted to present and did not name the witnesses she wanted to call. Only that her attorneys would not yield on the point. For all we know those mitigators may be fanciful and not legally viable or even factual, relevant. The witnesses she refers to may not have been willing or available. She was hoping some of these complaints were credible to the interviewer and the t.v. viewers. Speaking in broad generalities like that, one can assert anything. It was up to the interviewer to ask her to be specific. He did not.

Jen Wood writes in her trial diaries that she wanted Arias to ask if she could claim ineffectiveness of counsel, on appeal. Arias did and Judge Stephens told her no, she could not. No limitations were given. Of course, she can appeal on other grounds. If she tries to make that claim regarding her attorneys' representation in the trial in chief, she has poor contentions. Nurmi & Willmott went above and beyond their obligations.
 
  • #317
I am wondering how much time will pass between the verdict and release of live stream. I'd love to be able to watch the trial without knowing the ending in advance.
 
  • #318
Although the killer didn't have statutory mitigators, she wanted to refer to lesser included factors. These were allegations she was never able to substantiate but which did (creatively) make her feel oh, so sorry for herself. Remember the many times she asserted she was bruised here and bruised there? Despite all of the snapshots & selfies, she had no pictures. Then too, she says she suffered post traumatic stress. I guess that happens when you cause the trauma & know there will be hell to pay. Interesting that she didn't introduce these in any way in her allocution. So why blame her lawyers for omitting them?
 
  • #319
cute-hamster-in-cage.jpg
 
  • #320
Although the killer didn't have statutory mitigators, she wanted to refer to lesser included factors. These were allegations she was never able to substantiate but which did (creatively) make her feel oh, so sorry for herself. Remember the many times she asserted she was bruised here and bruised there? Despite all of the snapshots & selfies, she had no pictures. Then too, she says she suffered post traumatic stress. I guess that happens when you cause the trauma & know there will be hell to pay. Interesting that she didn't introduce these in any way in her allocution. So why blame her lawyers for omitting them?

BBM She did say that someone-( can't remember who- maybe Matt Macarthy?)- could verify that she had the bruises. Don't remember why this person didn't testify for her. Maybe she will try to have that person testify in the retrial? :thinking:

Anyone else remember that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
2,611
Total visitors
2,722

Forum statistics

Threads
632,730
Messages
18,631,026
Members
243,275
Latest member
twinmomming
Back
Top